THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you, Al. He's --
everybody must have a good lawyer, and I got one in Al Gonzales.

I want to welcome you all here to the White House. Thank you for
coming.

The federal courts play a central role in American justice,
protecting the innocent, punishing the guilty, resolving disputes and
upholding the rule of law. Yet, today, our federal courts are in
crisis.
The judicial confirmation process does not work as it should.
Nominees are too often mistreated, votes are delayed, hearings are
denied, and dozens of federal judgeships sit empty, and this endangers
the quality of justice in America.

Everyone knows these facts. Everyone knows the system isn't
working. These concerns are not new. And we will not find a solution
in an endless cycle of blame and bitterness.

Today, I'm proposing a clean start for the process of nominating
and confirming federal judges. We must have an even-handed,
predictable procedure from the day a vacancy is announced to the day a
new judge is sworn in. This procedure should apply now and in the
future, no matter who lives in this house or who controls the Senate.
We must return fairness and dignity to the judicial confirmation
process.
I want to thank the Judge Al Gonzales for working on this
initiative and I want to thank his team for working hard. I appreciate
John Ashcroft's service to our country; he is a great Attorney
General. (Applause.) And I'm not saying that just because his wife
and her twin sister are here. (Laughter.)

I'm so pleased that Ted Olson, the Solicitor General, is with us.
I thank Fred Fielding, the former counsel to President Ronald Reagan.
Boyd Gray is with us, former counsel to Number 41. Dennis Archer is
with us today, President-elect of the American Bar Association and, of
course, the former mayor of Detroit. Mr. Mayor, thank you for coming.
Thomas Hayward, Chair of the Committee of Federal Judicial Improvements
for the American Bar Association. And all of you, thank you for your
interest in this subject.

Nearly 18 months ago, at an event right here in the East Room, I
introduced my first 11 nominees to the Court of Appeals. I urged
Senators of both parties to provide a fair hearing and a prompt vote to
each nominee. Thus far, only three of these 11 nominations have been
brought to a vote in the United States Senate.

The eight who are stalled in the Judiciary Committee include people
such as John Roberts. John Roberts has argued 38 cases before the
Supreme Court. He has served as Deputy Solicitor General of the United
States. He's widely regarded as one of the best Supreme Court lawyers
in America.

And they include Miguel Estrada, who has argued 15 cases before the
U.S. Supreme Court, and has served in the Justice Department under
Presidents of both political parties as a federal prosecutor and as the
Assistant to the Solicitor General.

The Judiciary Committee has prevented full Senate action on people
such as Priscilla Owen, who has served brilliantly on the Texas Supreme
Court since 1995, and was overwhelmingly reelected by the people of
Texas in the year 2000. Mr. Roberts, Mr. Estrada and Justice Owen have
the highest ratings from the American Bar Association, which some
Democrat Senators have called, "the gold standard." They have broad
support among lawyers in both political parties. Both Mr. Roberts and
Mr. Estrada have the support of former President Clinton's Solicitor
General. Justice Owen is supported by three former Democrat justices
of the Texas Supreme Court.

In all, I have sent to the Senate 32 nominees for the Court of
Appeals. They are well qualified men and women with experience,
intelligence, character and bipartisan home state support. They
represent the mainstream of American law and American values. Yet the
Senate has confirmed only 14 of these 32 nominees, which is far below
the pace of past Senates at the start of an administration. It's a
lousy record. Not one of my nine pending nominees to fill vacancies on
the Sixth and D.C. Circuit Courts has received a Senate vote, not one.
As of November, 15 of my Appeals Court nominees will have been forced
to wait over a year for a hearing. That's more in this Presidency than
under the previous nine Presidents combined.

There's no good reason why any nominee should endure a year, a
year-and-a-half, or more, without the courtesy of an up or down floor
vote; there is not one good reason why. Whatever the explanation, we
clearly have a poisoned and polarized atmosphere in which well
qualified nominees are neither voted up or down; they are just left in
limbo. This is unfair to the nominees and their families. This
process discourages good people from serving as judges. It's also
unfair to the courts themselves, which are forced to handle a growing
caseload without the judges they need.

Nine percent of all federal judgeships in America are now vacant,
nine percent. Of the 12 regional Courts of Appeals, the courts right
below the Supreme Court, there is a 17 percent vacancy rate. The Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Court, which rules on many significant
Constitutional and regulatory issues, now operates with one-third of
its judgeships empty. And the Sixth Court of Appeals which covers
Kentucky and Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee, is nearly half empty, with
nine active judges doing the work of 16.

Meanwhile, the number of federal appeal court filings reached an
all-time high this year. Benches are empty, the number of court
filings has increased to an all-time high. We can expect them to
increase even further as a result of the war on terror, corporate fraud
prosecutions, and issues arising out of the September the 11th
attacks.

The judicial vacancies go unfulfilled, we will see more crowded
dockets and longer delays. The federal courts will be unable to act in
a timely manner to protect constitutional rights, to resolve civil
disputes, and enforce the criminal laws, the environmental laws, and
the civil rights laws that affects the lives and liberties of every
single American. Chief Justice Rehnquist has called this situation
alarming. The American Bar Association's report has described the
current status of the federal judiciary as an emergency situation.

The judicial crisis is the result of a broken system, and we have a
duty to repair it. I want to work with the Senate to fashion a new
approach to filling federal court vacancies. We should leave behind
the arguments and grievances of the past. We need to fix this problem
together. That's why we've come to Washington, to fix problems. And
each branch of government can contribute and must contribute to a
better system.

So today, I'm offering four specific proposals to break the logjam
in Washington and bring the federal courts of appeals and district
courts to full strength.

First, I call on federal judges on the courts of appeals and
district courts to notify the President of their intention to retire at
least a year in advance, whenever this is possible. Because the
nomination and confirmation of a federal judge is a lengthy process
under the best of circumstances, judges who retire without advance
notice can unintentionally create a judicial vacancy that can last for
many months. The request for one year advance notice builds on
existing policy of the judiciary and will help us work toward a system
in which a new federal judge is ready to take the bench on a day the
sitting judge retires -- that's the goal.

Second, I propose that Presidents submit a nomination to the Senate
within 180 days of receiving notice of a federal court vacancy or
intended retirement. In other words, we have a responsibility as well
to make sure the judiciary is sound and whole. This will speed up the
sometimes time-consuming process of obtaining recommendations and
evaluations from home-state senators and representatives and governors
and bar leaders, while leaving ample time for Presidents to vet and
choose nominees of the highest quality.

Third, I call on the Senate Judiciary -- Senate Judiciary
Committee to commit to holding a hearing within 90 days of receiving a
nomination. A strict deadline is the best way to ensure that judicial
nominees are promptly and fairly considered. And 90 days is more than
enough time for the committee to conduct necessary research before
holding a hearing -- that's plenty of time.

Finally, I call on the full Senate to commit to an up or down floor
vote on each nominee no later than 180 days after the nomination is
submitted. This is a very generous period of time that will allow all
the Senators to evaluate nominees and have their votes counted.

Our proposals would not favor Democrats or Republicans. The plan
would be fair and would apply to -- regardless of who the President
is. It doesn't matter who the President is. What matters is a system
which works.

For the first time in years, the judicial confirmation process
would work as it was intended to work. All Senators would have a
chance to make their voices heard, and their views known, and that's
important. All nominees would have the certainty of an up or down
Senate floor vote within a reasonable period of time, and that is
important. All Presidents would know that their judicial nominations
would be addressed promptly. All Americans would see a more dignified
process, and have their federal courts fully staffed to protect their
rights and their liberties. And the vacancy crisis would be resolved
once and for all.

I urge every member of the Senate, in particular those serving on
the Judiciary Committee, to carefully consider this new beginning for
the judicial nomination process, to weigh their responsibilities, to
look at the vacancy problem we have, to act in a responsible fashion.

The failure of the judicial confirmation process is harming the
administration of justice in America. That is a fact. The current
state of affairs is not merely another round of political wrangling.
It is a disturbing failure to meet our responsibilities under the
Constitution. The Constitution has given us a shared duty and we must
meet that duty together.